06 October 2009

Scottish Mathematician Retroactively Proves 90 Win Season On The Nose!

While uneducated hordes of Arizonans decry what seemed a disasterous baseball campaign, Scotland's foremost Diamondback authority is not among them. After intent arithmetic postulation and thought deeper than your average abyss, it turns out his true Diamondbacks fought their way to ninety wins and an enormous misunderstanding.

If only others were as nimble of mind. Take me, for example. I foolishly predicted this team would win 85 times. This was wrong, because I failed to take into account several realities that came to pass. I overestimated the offense, I overestimated the defense and I overestimated the pitching. I was blind to the abysmal lack of depth and organizational disregard for competent managerial continuity. So, you can see how dumb I was, reality-wise.

Contrast my simple idiocy with the learned surety of a master projectionist utilizing advanced, perhaps futuristic, statistical principles. Professor McLennan deftly determined, for example, that all 2009 Diamondbacks "luck" was bad, and this carefully measured misfortune cost the club nineteen games. At this point, even someone like me can sum the club's ostensible 70 victories with this important nineteen figure to simultaneously arrive at truth and justice. I'm grateful such a rigorous sabermetrician would share his elegant proof with the rest of us.

Thank you, professor, for your brilliance and generosity - and congratulations to the true Arizona Diamondbacks, on their unappreciated season of success.

20 comments:

To be fair Jim's post is approaching genius. I'd previously assumed that we were out of contention because we lost so many games, now I realise that we lost so many games because we were out of contention.

As for the bad luck; I wonder how many close decisions went against the team because of who the manager is?

I'm sure the FO were approaching orgasm when they they read this piece, although they do get some blame at the end (presumably for preventing a 100 win season).

In the end, no matter how tortuous the logic a shit season is still a shit season.

If you have a point, or would care to come up with your own estimate of how many games Arizona lost due to injuries and trades, I'd like to hear it. But as is, "Jamaal" said more of substance - despite plucking "five wins" completely out of thin air - in his dozen words, than you managed in 250-odd of your usual fact-free windbaggery.

Russell: I'll get to the "close games" thing in due course, but you should ask the '74 Padres about that - the evidence is that a team's record there is luck. The question is not whether this was "a shit season," but why it fell so far short, even of 'Hacks expectations. Of course, some people would rather just blame Derrick Hall [or even more amusingly, Daron Sutton] for everything...

If Webb and Jackson had been fit then the team may have gotten off to a better start, so maybe Melvin wouldn't have been fired, so maybe they wouldn't have imploded as they did after AJ was appointed.

There may be any number of alternate universes in which the D-Backs may have prospered but in our particular space-time continuum it seems over generous to imply that such a shambles of a season was largely the result of bad luck.

Jamaal, I had Brandon around four wins above bench (WSAB), although five is quite reasonable. Regression off his unusually high level of excellence (and workload) plus the 2008 insurance "red flags" skewed him down to about four in my view. In hindsight, of course, that was wildly optimistic. ******* although they [the FO] do get some blame at the end (presumably for preventing a 100 win season)

lol, Russell. Exactly. Since bad luck's worth 20 wins, and our flawed team wins ninety or so with neutral luck, then logic dictates good luck, in concert with a less reckless FO, propels AZ towards 110 victories. A forty game, year to year "luck swing"!

If I was inventing a fictional sabermetric doofus, this would be a delicious plank on which to develop a comically self-important character :-) Jim's latest bastardization of real analysts' labors is silly enough, were it not for the breathy encouragement this crap generates on his intellectually dying website.

*********

If you have a point...

Several have already been made satirically. Your accounting of luck is stridently one-sided and out of proportion with reason or experience. Your valuations of Webb and Jackson are off by factors of greater than two to one, which for someone with your access to rudimentary sabermetric info, is particularly damning. You have little or no perspective on what other teams endure.

When the Dbacks do poorly, you assign mountains of bad luck. When they do well, as in 2007, it's the assumed result of a crackerjack organization manifesting itself. In short, you're a discredited hack whose political interests demonstrably steer you toward delusion and away from credible discourse.

Since you can't even get simple arithmetic right, pardon me if I greet this advanced analysis with a smirk. Baseball Prospectus rate Webb with a WARP2 in the past three years of 8.3, 8.1 and 8.3. Far from a "unusually high level of excellence," he's been among the most consistent pitchers in baseball. My estimate was slightly lower than Webb's normal level of performance, as objectively reported by one of the most respected baseball sites. Or, as 'Hacks calls it, "bastardization of real analysts' labors". Again, your fact-free windbaggery reigns supreme.

Wow! Now it seems that either the definition of rebuild has changed or this most recent "analysis" has proven that there was indeed a rebuild???

JM "To me...A rebuild only happens when a conscious, deliberate decision is made by the front office to replace a significant component of the team with younger, cheaper alternatives, in the hope that those players will grow to be suitable replacements.

JM "TradesAfter it became apparent that this team was not going to be in the post-season hunt, several deals were made, sending useful pieces to other teams, generally in exchange for players who might help the team in 2010 or beyond. The players we lost would likely have helped the Diamondbacks to several more victories..."

"Ugh. I hope those trades work out better for us in the long-term than they did this season, because they provided absolutely nothing of value to the 2009 team. "

foulpole: The main players traded away by Arizona - Garland and Lopez - were both going to be free-agents in a couple of months anyway. If Jon Garland leaving Arizona five weeks early is evidence of a 'rebuild', you must also think the Rockies trading Holliday to the A's last winter indicated they were in full on fire-sale mode...

What other response would I expect from a jackass, after my Webb projection turns out to be more accurate that yours or BP's? A more intelligent response might be along the lines of "Hmmm. That's impressive. How did you arrive at that figure ?" Feel free to attribute that, or our respective 2009 rotation predictions to luck as well. You are so versed in luck, I'm confident it takes up most of your toolbox lately.

Baseball Prospectus rate Webb with a WARP2 in the past three years of 8.3, 8.1 and 8.3.

Um...yeah? WARP2 is a measure of established performance, not a projection. That you would cite BP's most liberal measure of performance above replacement and project Webb at 8 based on this adds to the uncomfortable comedy.

Far from a "unusually high level of excellence," he's been among the most consistent pitchers in baseball.

Brandon Webb's been consistent? Gee, what a revelation. All this time, I had assumed he was a wildly erratic, low value bum. Thanks for framing the issue. I assume everyone (save you, of course) understood " unusually high level of excellence" referenced Webb against other pitchers , not one Webb year against another. It's clear from this misinterpretation and the inane "reasoning" behind your hapless annual predictions, you dont appreciate the first thing about regressing projections off established norms, player valuation, or the dynamics involved in winning and losing baseball games. Even accepting BW projected to eight marginal wins in 2009 (which is silly)as opposed to four or five, that speaks to just a tiny fraction of your preposterous 40 win "luck swing".

My estimate was slightly lower than Webb's normal level of performance, as objectively reported by one of the most respected baseball sites.

Two weeks ago you were trying to pawn off Webb's injury as costing us sixteen games, and insulting those who didnt appreciate the devastating magnitude of it all. Then you crawled down to ten. Now you've found someone who thinks Webby used to be worth eight. Yawn. Six months from now, you'll be spouting an epiphany that Webb was worth five or six in the spring of 09, due to shoulder issues. At this point, who cares?

As far as BP being respected, yes and no. Unlike you, the wisest among them recognize the complexity and limitations of statistics generally, and replacement level measures in particular. On the other hand, BP are the Einsteins who've plugged the Diamondbacks into the World Series most every year, scoring 800+ runs. Those monumental miscalculations have nothing to do with Brandon Webb. They predicted one of this year's six divisional winners - the LA Angels - and tabbed the Indians, Mets, Dbacks and Cubs. Respected geniuses, I tell you. Far more than you, anyway.

JM:"The main players traded away by Arizona - Garland and Lopez - were both going to be free-agents in a couple of months anyway."

***********************The D-backs had a team option for Garland. But according to you.***********************

"Almost as significant a weakening were the Peña and Rauch deals, not just for what they would have done in the 'pen but the negative impact of the players received in return."

***********************

So, which one is it? The Pena and Rauch deals were or were not significant?

*********************

JM:"..you must also think the Rockies trading Holliday to the A's last winter indicated they were in full on fire-sale mode.."

I was trying to figure out why in one article you defined a rebuild arguing that it was not what was going on then basically in another article argued that was pretty much exactly what happened when using your definition of "rebuild" in order to "prove" a different point.

"My Webb projection turns out to be more accurate that yours or BP's?"

LOL! Your Webb projection was for 15 wins, and at least 25 starts. All bow down before such impeccable accuracy! Let's take a look at ERA projections, shall we? Oh, except you didn't dare provide any. So just me then:

So, I beat CHONE and ZIPS on all four pitchers and James and Marcel on three of the four when it came to projecting pitcher performance. If anything, I was too cautious - except for Scherzer, our pitchers all did better than I expected.

Wins, I'll cheerfully admit to getting wrong - that's because I over-estimated our offensive production, like most credible resources. But you're right: it's most amusing to see your rabid disdain for my projection of Jon Garland getting 12 wins - I was just *so* far off there.

WARP2 is a measure of actual performance. Duh. And Webb has consistently "actually performed" above the eight-win level when healthy. Yet you arbitrarily decide (with pure hindsight, too) that this year, he'd revert back to form not seen for five seasons, when he was played for Jerry's Kids. I have no hesitation in calling that BS, even by your low usual standards of analysis.

I've lost count of the times I've had to explain simple statistical principles to you. So, for you to attempt to lecture me on regression is most amusing. Especially when your entire case is that a Cy Young winner has to regress - a player can't actually be good, even after demonstrating it for multiple seasons. You do realize what an idiot such statements make you sound, don't you? But I look forward to your upcoming article, That Albert Pujols is just so lucky.

And finally, you flat out make shit up, e.g. "your preposterous 40 win luck swing". Show me where I even mentioned 40 wins. I credited exactly three wins to bad luck. But that's all you're good at, isn't it? Your actual position is untenable, so you fabricate one for me and then attack that. It's so painfully obvious it's genuinely funny. As usual, your own posts have done such a good job of showing you up as a jackass (worked out what 70+19 is yet?), I need hardly bother.

JM:"I'm not sure whether your apparent misinterpretation of my posts is deliberate or accidental. Out of contention teams make trades of spare parts every year. Doesn't mean they are rebuilding."

You were calling others windbags and berating their opinions.

You argued that there was no rebuild in '09 and defined rebuild as "...happens when a conscious, deliberate decision is made by the front office to replace a significant component of the team with younger, cheaper alternatives, in the hope that those players will grow to be suitable replacements."

You stated that ...The loss of Brandon Webb was a devastating blow to the Diamondbacks in 2009,..." and gave it a value of 8 fewer wins for the year.

You gave a value of 4 wins to CJ's season long issues.

You said that the trades cost the team 4 wins and these took place late in the season. You must have felt that it was significant while making your argument about the luck issue (I guess).

So, if the trades cost the team 4 wins, you felt it was significant enough to include those in your "bad luck" article, but now say that the players were all "spare parts???"

It sure seems to me that if you are valuing their late departure at 4 wins then they must be more accurately described as "...a significant component..." than "spare parts."

Why? Because your win guesses are so indefensible? Way to change the subject. Your ERA's were fine, but they werent the crux of contention in March and thery're not now. So, it's hilarious you feel compelled to bring them up now. Further, had your ERA's been more accurate (less conservative) , presumably your win guesses would've even been worse...if that's possible.

it's most amusing to see your rabid disdain for my projection of Jon Garland getting 12 wins - I was just *so* far off there.

Well, you were. Especially considering all the fuss you made about it. He went 8-11 in Arizona, so 12-10 isn't close. It was a lousy call, like most of your predictions. It's worse than any of the services or I predicted, and really the fact he picked up 27% of his wins within a couple weeks of leaving the Dbacks is what prevents your call from looking as silly as it was.

LOL! Your Webb projection was for 15 wins, and at least 25 starts. All bow down before such impeccable accuracy!

I had Webb at 15-10, four or five games over bench (four and change). You had him at eight over. He came in at zero. I win. You lose. Injuries are part of the game and only a bad analyst (and poor sport) would try to laugh them off when he fails to account for them as thoroughly as you have.

Yet you arbitrarily decide (with pure hindsight, too) that this year, [Webb would] revert back to form not seen for five seasons...I have no hesitation in calling that BS, even by your low usual standards of analysis.

Wrong again. I had him at 15-10 back in March, so the hindsight charge is misguided fiction. Talk about "making shit up". You cant even process what people clearly say, and still havent the foggiest clue as to athletic regression.

Especially when your entire case is that a Cy Young winner has to regress

God, you really are dumb as a fencepost. I never said a Cy Young winner has to regress. I suggested it generally makes sense to regress Cy Young winners. There's a chasm of difference between those two statements, and as usual you're on the far side of wisdom.

Another Albert Pujols reference? lol. I thought I scared you away from Albert, after you invoked him to prove the Dbacks werent rebuilding at first base. Alas, I was mistaken. At this point, I kinda view him as your personal Hitler....when his name pops up, I chuckle knowing the argument's won :-)

And finally, you flat out make shit up...show me where I even mentioned 40 wins.

You didnt, and that makes your song and dance that this was really a 90 win team, with more or less neutral luck and a "reckless" FO, especially funny. Because you dont even think through the most obvious implications of such primitive accounting.

Look, there are reasonable points to be made on 'your side' of things. It's too bad you seldom make them. I certainly think our underlying talent was better than the W/L, for a variety of reasons. Where you step off the ranch is in quantifying what's within and outside organizational influence and responsibility. Most analysts, including your heroes at BP, arrive at something about half what you attribute to stuff outside FO control. The other half (very roughly speaking) is that everybody was wrong about the Dbacks. Everybody but you.